Summary
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals addressed the government's motion to dismiss and the appellant's cross-motion for default judgment regarding a certified claim for costs under a defense contract task order. The Board denied both motions, determining that the appellant maintained direct privity of contract with the government, properly specified amounts sought, and provided adequate notice of its claims. Additionally, the Board found the government's procedural submissions did not demonstrate contemptuous conduct warranting a default judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the ASBCA has jurisdiction to hear a claim filed by a subcontractor under the Contract Disputes Act.
- Whether Envistacom’s claim satisfies the sum‑certain requirement and therefore states a claim.
Holdings
- The Board has jurisdiction because Envistacom is in privity of contract with the Government through the DAGRS contract and TACNET task order, satisfying the CDA’s requirement that a contractor be a party to a Federal contract.
- The claim satisfies the sum‑certain requirement because it separately identifies amounts for directed changes, engineering change proposals, spare parts, and material costs.
Key quotations
“The government’s motion to dismiss is denied. Envistacom’s cross‑motion for default judgment is denied.” (at end)
Factual background
Envistacom, subcontracted through Atlantic Diving Supply to provide hardware and integration for satellite transportable terminals under DLA purchase orders. The Army later issued a TACNET task order to Envistacom for network enhancements. Envistacom submitted a certified claim for $9.3 million covering directed changes, engineering proposals, spare‑part replacements, and material costs, which the contracting officer partially granted.
Procedural history
Envistacom appealed a contracting officer’s partial denial of its certified claim under the DAGRS contract and TACNET task order. The government moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing lack of privity and failure to state a claim. Envistacom also sought a default judgment against the government for an allegedly incomplete Rule 4 file.